California Politician Who Wrote Unconstitutional Anti-Video Game Law Plans To Try Again With New Law

from the and-waste-more-taxpayer-money dept

With the Supreme Court agreeing with every other court (well over a dozen of them) ruling that government attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children is a First Amendment violation, it appears that the politician who came up with California's law isn't about to give up. State Senator Leland Yee held a press conference, in which he claimed that it was an example of the Court siding with "corporate America" over "our children." Yeah, he pulled out the "but think of the children" line that only desperate politicians use.

"It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

Except... that's wrong. Nothing in the ruling has any impact, whatsoever, on the rights of parents. Why would Senator Yee make a statement that is clearly dishonest? The ruling was over the rights of children. Parents still have the same rights they had before. Parents are still able to raise their kids in the same way they did before. There is nothing, whatsoever, in the ruling that limits or changes how a parent can raise their kid. Furthermore, as pointed out over and over again (and actively denied by Senator Yee), there is no evidence that violent video games have any impact on "the well-being" of kids. Senator Yee is pandering to a public by misstating what the research says.

Even worse, it appears he wants to waste more California taxpayer money by going through this whole charade all over again. Yes, that's right, he's indicated that he wants to try again with a new law. Apparently, he has his staff "poring through the opinions to see where we can create a pathway for a successful bill that could withstand a challenge." In other words, more California taxpayer money is going to be spent going through another round of legal challenges.

Is it really that hard for him to understand that he's wasting time and money here? This ruling does not restrict parents. The research has failed to show any causal relationship, and all indications are that the "well-being" of children is not at all harmed by such video games. Why bother trying to go through all of this again over a fantasy?

Doublethink:

The ability to hold contradictory beliefs in one's mind and believe them both.

Senator Yee is obviously a master of doublethink, he no doubt knows how stupid his endeavor is, and yet also knows the huge amount of "good" publicity it generates for him at the tax-payers' expense and believes both are apparently vital.

I, for one, am glad to have Senators wasting time on laws that will be struck down rather than adding useless new laws or passing laws which restrict my liberties.

Let's reverse the logic here: Can you show any reason why violent videos games are a benefit to children? Can you show any reason that controlling them and making them 18+ would somehow damage a child's development?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What is it about this law (or the one restricting adult magazines) that prevents the parent from deciding what the child is ready for? Unless I'm misreading it, the law merely prevents a child from making the purchase directly; it doesn't prevent a parent from making that purchase on the child's behalf.
Is there something I'm missing? I don't see how an adult's 1st Amendment rights are violated, and a child only has the 1st Amendment rights that their parents allow. Laws such as this provide another tool for parents to control what their kids see or do; they don't stop the production or sale of such items in general.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Assuming that the PA law you mention affects parents as well, then I agree that there's a violation. Such laws take away the parent's right to parent and make choices because another person doesn't agree with the content.
However, that doesn't make the two the same thing. The video game law would require a parent to take some form of action and obtain the game for their children, after (in theory) looking at the box, finding a rating and the reasons for that rating and determining if that content is appropriate for their child. The scale is still arbitrary, but it still allows the parent to make the determination (ignoring the likelihood that the kid will find a way to get the game by some other means).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

all major retailers follow the ESRB guidelines pretty fiercely, I had a college buddy get fired from Best Buy for selling a game to a kid and have heard some stories from gamestop employeees about the company sending in "secret shoppers" to try and buy games they were not old enough for, apparently (citation needed) gamestop will even go so far as to strip franchise rights from a privately owned franchise for violating ESRB guidelines.

The point is there is a system in place that works. Well it works if parents take an interest in wtf their kids are doing.

You know what the difference between a video game and a porno mag is, you need to be on the TV to play games. If you have a young child shouldn't you look at what he is playing, maybe even play with him? At least look at the box and see the rating (assuming he found someone else to buy it or a small time shop that doesnt care about the ESRB [maybe that gamestop that lost their franchise]) and all the info that little box gives you.

If your child is so young and impressionable maybe you should see wtf he is doing. If he is such a sneaky shit that he will buy it and hide it from you maybe make him set up the xbox in the family room so you can always walk in and see whats up, or again hang out and play with him/watch what he is doing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I agree completely that parents need to be paying attention. I consider it to be a sad state of affairs that parents would need the government to enforce such restrictions on minors; but it's apparently there. And it could be a tool that helps. Of course, it could just encourage lazier parenting, which would also be sad.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Fair enough. However, if the store sells a child such a game against the parent's wishes (which should be rare with proper, attentive parents, but we all know that's a rarity these days), isn't that a violation of the parent's right to control the child's access? While it definitely shouldn't be the government's job to do the parenting, shouldn't it be the government's job to help protect the rights of said parents?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In theory, the right to protect the child from harm (in the eyes of the parent). Granted, this isn't explicitly written out in the Constitution, but neither is the right to (for example) not have my face punched in. That had to be added in as a regular law.
And before I forget, whose 1st Amendment right is being attacked by the law in question? It doesn't stop such games from being made or sold to the general public. The games still get out there.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> And before I forget, whose 1st Amendment right
> is being attacked by the law in question?

The childrens' rights. As Scalia pointed out, children have the same right to be free from government censorship as any other citizen. So the government can't pass a law censoring video games from them, even thought their parents can.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> isn't that a violation of the parent's right
> to control the child's access?

Perhaps, but that's a matter between the parent and the business. It's not the proper place of government to enforce internal family rules for people.

> shouldn't it be the government's job to help
> protect the rights of said parents?

No, not really. If people want to be parents, they take on the responsibility of all parenthood entails. They're not entitled to co-opt the resources of the rest of us (in the form of tax dollars) to help them out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

For the first part, if it is between the parent and the business, then it's definitely the role of the government to intervene; that's the primary role of government, to protect people from each other.
For the second...wouldn't that be nice, if parents actually took on the full responsibility of parenting? I agree that they shouldn't be using everyone else's resources to raise their kids (or so many other things); but that isn't happening, and hasn't been for far too long.
It's probably just me, but that's another big reason I'd like to see such tools added...eventually, such parents are going to run out of excuses, and maybe then we can see more parental responsibility.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> if it is between the parent and the business, then it's
> definitely the role of the government to intervene;
> that's the primary role of government, to protect people
> from each other

Not in that sense it isn't. Just the opposite, in fact. When two private parties interact with one another, it's the proper place of government to stay out of the way to the highest degree possible.

If a parent doesn't like it that Blockbuster is interfering with her right to parent by renting games to her kid, then she can express her concerns to management and if they're not addressed, she can decline to do business with them.

Simple.

What we don't need (and which is constitutionally prohibited) are grand-standing politicians poking their collective noses into that process and passing laws to criminally enforce what amounts to nothing more than personal preferences within families.

> wouldn't that be nice, if parents actually took on the full
> responsibility of parenting?

Sure would. But regardless of whether they do or not, the Constitution remains the same. There's no "unless parents aren't doing their job" exception to the 1st Amendment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

However, if the store sells a child such a game against the parent's wishes (which should be rare with proper, attentive parents, but we all know that's a rarity these days), isn't that a violation of the parent's right to control the child's access? While it definitely shouldn't be the government's job to do the parenting, shouldn't it be the government's job to help protect the rights of said parents?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The first amendment right between child and government trumps the parents' 'right' to control the child's access. And all of that assumes that the parents are paying proper, mature attention to what their kids are doing and buying. 'Decent' parents shouldn't really need this law. All they are doing is wanting other people to 'do their job' for them and then whining when it's ruled unconstitutional.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, because private entities don't violate parents' rights by selling things. The only way that private entities violate rights is by breaking a specific law that entitles individuals specific things with regard to a specific type of private entity (the right to rent or buy the same houses as people of other skin colors, the right to be served at a lunch counter regardless of race, etc.). And don't try to tell me that a retail operation selling video games to a kid that a parent wouldn't want sold to the kid is violating the parents' First Amendment rights--that's just disagreement between two private parties...which is what this country was founded on. I'm not saying that video games are as important as political argument between citizens, but that's the area we're dealing in here.

Re:

I have a son. 8 years old. Due to various factors, he's got allot of anger issues.

When he is at his mothers house, he doesn't play "violent video games". But he gets into fights with other kids more then usual.

When he is over my house, I let him play Team Fortress 2 (with the blood off, balloons turned on, etc). We play as a team against the bots and password protect the server so that no one outside of me or him (or whoever I invite on) can join us and be rude.

He is calm, relaxed and not at all the stressed ball I get to see when it's my turn to be with him.

Now, GTA4 of course is out. I have let him play GTA3 (with the voices turned off and under strict supervision), but only to drive fire trucks and put out fires, save people in ambulances and to catch criminals in cop cars (cheat codes to remove the stars for stealing it of course).

So there ya go. A reason why they are good. Now, I won't say not having them would damage his development, but it is helping.

Re: Re: Parenting

Re: Re: Re: Parenting

This is interesting for me to read. I have a 2 1/2 year old boy, and I want to start planning how I will eventually expose him to computer games. Although he is too young now, I should have a bit of leeway with JCB/train etc games, but it won't be long until I have to deal with FPS, RPG etc. games, especially ones we play (we love Diablo!). So it's interesting to see which games can be 'peace-bonded' or creatively modded. Maybe I should look at some of the games I have to see how they can be 'neutered'.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Parenting

Steam had a "Family" category for games. Allot of good choices there..

But for my Son, his "Gateway" game was Minecraft (and he still plays it) as well as Terraina. Both excellent games that are exciting and imangination filled, but no real serious violence (and both can do multiplayer and are cheap).

Re: WTF?

> Can you show any reason why violent videos
> games are a benefit to children? Can you show
> any reason that controlling them and making
> them 18+ would somehow damage a child's
> development?

Huh?

Ice cream is of no real benefit to children, either. Controlling it and restricting it to 18+ also wouldn't damage a child's development. But no one in their right mind would advocate banning children from having an ice cream cone.

The idea that every product has to affirmatively prove that it is beneficial to children before it can be sold them is idiotic.

Re: Re: WTF?

Violent, competitive sports are considered good for children. They are definitely interactive. Isn't this therefore the usual "but it's digital!" fallacy? So if it's is maybe more beneficial to a kid to do the activity all his friends do (and not be the outcast), or have a good safe sink for any violence or anger (which sport is often cited as being good for), then how can you not justify the more violent computer games, at least in a properly supervised manner?

Do we really need government controlling yet another aspect of our lives?

Re:

Because violent is subjective. The law in question said violence against "Humans". Does that mean Elves are ok? They look mostly human. What about Aliens? Or Orcs? You can't base your business around the shifting winds of public opinion.

Can you show any reason why violent books are a benefit to children? Why not ban selling books contains violence? MANY children read violent books. Harry Potter, Grimms Fairy Tales, and of course... the Bible.

Re: Re: Re:

How about "game creator?" Don't you think that limiting your potential audience is an infringement on your rights of speech? Imagine this: you can have an exhibit of your paintings, but your audience is statutorily limited to people over 18. Or over 80. Or you can only have one person view your entire exhibit. Limiting your freedom yet?

Re:

Why should we NOT ban them? Because as a 21 year old who has been playing 'teen' rated games since I was about 6 (the Command and Conquer series mostly), I can personally attest that my life would probably be VERY different today were it not for those games. Those games got me interested in computers and programming. That early interest allowed me to exhaust my highschool's CS curriculum quite rapidly and move on to classes at the local university, and come out as one of the top students in a 400-level class. Which may be why I got into the university I'm currently at. Which got me my $25/hr part time job while still in school. Or maybe nothing would have changed, who knows...but those games are the single reason why, had you asked me in 3rd grade what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would have answered with "computer programmer". And I'm pretty sure that's had a pretty significant and pretty positive impact on my life.

Re:

as a parent, there were times when my kids were younger that i did not want them playing violent video games.
the difference here is that its my job to be the parent... not the states job. i do not want nor do i need a governmental agency telling me how i should raise my kids when it comes to an issue such as video games.

Re:

"Let's reverse the logic here: Can you show any reason why violent videos games are a benefit to children? Can you show any reason that controlling them and making them 18+ would somehow damage a child's development?

No? Then why object?"

Following your logic here: Can you show any reason why Scolding Children, Condoms, Vitamins, Clothing, Shoes, Bathing, or Set Bed Times are a befit to children? Can you show any reason that controlling them and making them 18+ would somehow damage a child's development?

Re: Re:

A lot of people forget that you do make choices based on trying to be a good parent (for instance, trying not to scold too much, violently etc.) or because there are KNOWN benefits to controlling behaviour (i.c. set bed times, bathing). But do you really need the government saying "you can only scold your child once a day" or "you must bathe your child every day"? No. Whilst it can be good to legistlate the worst of PARENTAL behaviour (to limit child abuse, etc.) it's a little stupid to say "the kid can play this same game, but only if someone else bought it".

Re:

Oh, man: are french fries beneficial? Yes, as nutrition, regardless of the availability of better sources. So, then, yes: video games are a benefit to children--they improve hand-eye coordination, regardless of the availability of what you might consider better ways to accomplish this.

Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .

Such a law sounds good on paper, but in practice it would be abused to high hell by corrupt judges, give judges unprecedented influence over lawmakers, and have massive chilling effects on the passing of controversial laws, and not necessarily just the bad ones.

For just one example, consider that if a law like this existed, President Obama would have to be impeached because U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled his health care bill unconstitutional.

Re: Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .

Here's a law we really need...

With the Supreme Court agreeing with every other court (well over a dozen of them) ruling that government attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children is a First Amendment violation, it appears that the politician who came up with California's law isn't about to give up.

If the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then there need to be criminal penalties for those politicians who conspire to violate it. On the civil side, the politicians who voted for such laws should be required to reimburse the taxpayers for the legal costs. That would likely end them voting for all these obviously unconstitutional laws in the first place.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Fth

Our churches are empty because humans--despite being amazingly slow learners sometimes--are beginning to learn how 'magical thinking and ignorant belief' are bad for everybody.

But, don't worry, there will likely always be a few people who want the mental crutch of believing in only one thing which they believe they need never justify, so the churches will always have a few followers.

Re: Re: Re: Fth

"Hmm, that sounds like "magical thinking and ignorant belief"."

It's more like the scientific method and observation.

People are beginning to question everything. They are beginning to realize that everyone else is beginning to question everything also. In a world of instant communications, to think otherwise is really stupid.

Re: Re: Fth

People like the rest are blind to the faith. Everyone is a non-believer of Jesus.

"A fool says in his heart 'there is no god'" - Hebrews 9:27.

Believing in Jesus isn't magical thinking or ignorant belief, it's a relationship. I will never bring a few people to Jesus. More people will come to Jesus. If the faith should be penalized by death then let it be. I will never reject my savior and start thinking for myself.

If anyone tells others to stop believing in a Savior who died for their sins and start thinking for themselves, that person is leading the Lord's lost sheep on a path of destruction. I will help the Lord rescue His Lost Sheep.

California has the right to ban violent games, the violent game ban is constitutional. Think of the children

Re:

uhh..
i am thinking of the children. specifically mine not having to wake up every morning in a totalitarian regime.
if the games are too violent dont play them and dont let yours play them.
there are no states that are going anywhere and i wish people would just drop the idiotic idea.
revival? now your on a religious bent apparently.. and we need it not now and not ever.

This ruling OBVIOUSLY forces parents to go out and immediately buy all the super violent video games for their children and allow them to play those games unsupervised. Parents now have no rights regarding the raising of their children and must allow them to become serial murderers and talk in movie theaters.

Think of the children? I didn't need such laws when I was growing up. Then again, unlike Yee, I don't come from some parallel universe where video games DO inspire children to uppercut one another into pits of acid, surf down mountains on turtle shells, throw barrels at gorillas, or wander around mazes detonating bombs at stray balloons.

TV is dangerous

Once, when I was young, I watched that old Simpsons episode, where Bart runs into the wall, and he goes into a 3D CGI world (it was one of the early Treehouse of Horror episodes). Me being impressionable, I too ran into the wall in my kitchen and nearly gave myself a concussion. (The notion that I was already existing in a three dimensional world was obviously a bit beyond me).
Beyond that, I haven't done anything that was influenced by TV, movies, books or video-games. I may have learned new perspectives and ways of looking at the world, but such positives are ignored by the likes of this politician. I don't blow myself up with dynamite like Bugs Bunny and the rest, thinking I'll be unharmed in the next scene. I don't rob cars like Grand Theft Auto. I don't throw Pokeballs at random animals. I don't stomp on the heads of my enemies, like Mario. I don't play Doom or Quake or Duke Nukem and somehow, have the point and click experience translate into holding an actual gun in real life (yes, that's what Jack Thompson was arguing, that the Columbine killers trained for their killing spree in Doom).

FTA "Furthermore, as pointed out over and over again (and actively denied by Senator Yee), there is no evidence that violent video games have any impact on "the well-being" of kids."

While I understand that there is no evidence, I do believe, after spending years and years playing games myself (avid gamer) and with my children, that violence in media can have an effect on impressionable minds.

It is, however, up to me as a parent to restrict that from my children NOT the government. All game systems now, dvd players, tv boxes, computers, they have the ability for me to block the content I find objectionable. Sure, my kids can go somewhere else and possibly see it and that is a risk we all take, but that is another part of being active in your child's life. Knowing where they are, who they are with, if the other child's parents are home with them.

I am tired of these politicians pandering to people who want someone else to take care of their kids.

Re: Movie Ratings

> If the video game ban is unconstitutional,
> then shouldn't movie ratings be as such too?

Nope. Movie ratings are not based in law. There's no law (state or federal) which requires theaters to abide by the movie ratings system. It's not illegal to let a 14-year-old into an R-rated movie.

The ratings system is voluntary on the part of theaters. They choose to abide by it, but they don't have to. If the government were to pass a law tomorrow that made it a crime to fail to abide by the rating system, it would be just as unconstitutional as the video game law was found to be.

Re:

ummm, so help me out. If the video game ban is unconstitutional, then shouldn't movie ratings be as such too?

Movie ratings are entirely a voluntary system by the MPAA (much like the ESRB system for games). There is no law concerning movie ratings, because (like this law) it would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Re: Re:

I found it amazing the first time I went to the US (as an adult) and discovered any child could actually see any movie. In the UK, and I think most of Europe, the ratings have the force of law in the cinema (I think). But then we have no 'pesky' constitution getting in the way of governmental control.

The funny thing is how parents choose to apply it. In the UK, my parents wouldn't let me see "Alien" at the age of 16 (on TV, even). And yet, I had been allowed to watch "Apocalypse Now" at the cinema at the age of 12... because we were in Yugoslavia and there didn't seem to be any serious rating system back then!

Re: Re: Re:

While this is an EXTREMELY rare example of the court actually doing something right, it's odd that it's okay to sell minors violence but not sex. I guess our government would rather have them making war, not love.

Protecting Our Children?

When it comes to deciding what is good or bad for our children let's be honest. If we want to protect our sons and daughters from real life violence we'll start paying attention to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and be responsible. Concentration on pretend video game violence is absurd.

Should we have a law that makes it a crime to sell meat-based food to underage kids if their parent wants them to be a vegan? If the parent wants the kid to follow a very specific and censored lifestyle, it is up to him to enforce that. Everybody else doesn't have the obligation to do the parenting for him under threat of jail or whatever.

So it's not the job of Burger King to follow your parenting rules if your kid goes by himself to one of their food places and orders a Whopper.

hrm...

Y'know, what's funny is that all major retailers already self-regulate on this issue and card for the videogames in question, because they don't want stupid laws like this in place. Oh, sure, there are probably people who break the corporate rules and sell an M rated game to a 10 year old, but Wal-Mart and others refuse to sell AO rated games.

What's funny is that it's usually parents who buy egregiously violent videogames for their kids against the recommendations of the salesfolk.